Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 278 Filed 01/11/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 18631
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-516-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT THAT U.S. PATENT NO. 7,630,724 IS NOT INCORPORATED INTO U.S.
`PATENT APPLICATION NO. 14/027,410
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 278 Filed 01/11/19 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 18632
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Pages
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 12-cv-630-LHK, 2014 WL 252045 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) .................................... 2
`
`Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2:13-cv-1015-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2526231 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) .................... 2
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................... 1
`
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................... 2
`
`In re De Seversky,
`474 F.2d 671 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States,
`535 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c).......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 278 Filed 01/11/19 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 18633
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1
`Ex. 2
`Ex. 3
`Ex. 4
`Ex. 5
`Ex. 6
`Ex. 7
`Ex. 8
`Ex. 9
`Ex. 10
`Ex. 11
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14-027,410
`U.S. Patent No. 7,301,728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724
`The New Oxford American Dictionary (excerpt) (2001)
`Case IPR2018-00817 Institution Decision
`Case IPR2018-00819 Institution Decision
`Case IPR2018-00818 Institution Decision
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 278 Filed 01/11/19 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 18634
`
`
`
`The ’410 application did not expressly and clearly incorporate the ’724 patent. Tellingly,
`
`in its opposition, AGIS never actually recites the incorporation statement at issue: “The method
`
`and operation of communication devices used here are described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,031,728 which
`
`is hereby incorporated by reference and U.S. Pat. No. 7,630,724.” (Ex. 51 ¶ 5 (emphasis added).)
`
`First, AGIS contends that the ʼ410 application uses the words “incorporated by reference”
`
`(Dkt. No. 259 (“Opp.”) at 3), but that is not enough. As AGIS concedes, an incorporation
`
`statement must demonstrate “clear intent to incorporate” and must “clearly identify the referenced
`
`patent.”2 The incorporation statement here uses the words “which”—referring to the preceding
`
`’728 patent—and “is,” indicating that incorporation is singular (i.e., only the ’728 patent is
`
`incorporated). Apple highlighted these facts in its opening brief (see Mot. at 3), which AGIS
`
`wholly ignored in its opposition. There is no “clear intent” to incorporate the ʼ724 patent, nor does
`
`the incorporation statement “clearly identify” the ʼ724 patent as being incorporated by reference.
`
`Second, AGIS argues that the ʼ728 and ʼ724 patents are identified in the “Cross Reference
`
`to Related Applications” of the ʼ410 application and that Apple’s interpretation of the
`
`incorporation statement “would render [the Related Applications section] superfluous” (Opp. at 3-
`
`4), but that argument makes little sense. The “Related Applications” section (Ex. 5 ¶ 1) merely
`
`identifies all related applications, and the incorporation statement (id. ¶ 5) indicates the related
`
`’728 patent is incorporated. A list of related applications is immaterial to incorporation; mere
`
`reference does not incorporate anything. In re De Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 674 (C.C.P.A. 1973).3
`
`
`1 Exs. 1-11 were filed with Apple’s opening brief (Dkt. No. 226, “Mot.”).
`2 (See Opp. at 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(b) [sic]).) 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c) requires “a clear intent to
`incorporate” and “clear[] identif[ication of] the referenced patent.”
`3 AGIS’s reliance on its cited cases (see Opp. at 4) is misplaced. In Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet
`Co., the Federal Circuit considered whether two different embodiments within a referenced patent
`were both incorporated. 576 F.3d 1331, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Callaway did not address whether
`the referenced patent itself was sufficiently incorporated and does not change the result here. And
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 278 Filed 01/11/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 18635
`
`
`
`Third, AGIS’s reliance on “expert opinion” does not defeat summary judgment. As the
`
`case AGIS cites explains (see Opp. at 6), incorporation by reference is a question of law, and “[t]he
`
`opinion of an expert does not convert a question of law into a question of fact.” Apple Inc. v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 12-cv-630-LHK, 2014 WL 252045, at *23 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014);
`
`see also Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-cv-1015-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2526231, at *2
`
`(E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) (“Whether a host document incorporates material by reference is purely
`
`a question of law.”).
`
`Finally, the Court should reject AGIS’s argument that any alleged ambiguity in the
`
`incorporation statement defeats summary judgment. (See Opp. at 4-5.) AGIS’s arguments rely on
`
`irrelevant state contract law. (See id.) This is not an issue of contract law; it is a legal issue—
`
`properly decided by the Court—arising out of patent law. Biscotti, 2017 WL 2526231, at *2.
`
`Patent law requires that an incorporation statement must be “express and clear,” and must leave
`
`“no reasonable doubt about the fact that the referenced document is being incorporated . . . .”
`
`Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 535 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(emphasis added). At most, reasonable doubt exists as to whether the ʼ410 application
`
`incorporated the ʼ724 patent by reference. That alone warrants summary judgment that the ʼ724
`
`patent was not incorporated by reference into the ʼ410 application.
`
`Summary judgment will simplify potential issues for trial concerning the priority date of
`
`four of five patents-in-suit. For at least the foregoing reasons, Apple’s motion should be granted.
`
`
`
`
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd. just gives an example of a statement
`that could incorporate multiple patents. 838 F.3d 1236, 1241 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“All cross-
`referenced patents and application[s] referred to in this specification are hereby incorporated by
`reference.”) (emphasis added). Instead of using similar language, the ’410 application explicitly
`incorporated only the ’728 patent, and Husky Injection Molding does not change the result here.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 278 Filed 01/11/19 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 18636
`
`Dated: January 11, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Respectfully submitted:
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa Richards Smith
`State Bar No. 24001351
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Tel: (903) 934-8450
`Fax: (903) 934-9257
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`John M. Desmarais
`Paul A. Bondor
`Michael P. Stadnick
`Ameet A. Modi
`Cosmin Maier
`Kerri-Ann Limbeek
`Brian Matty
`Tom BenGera
`Kathryn Bi
`Francesco Silletta
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: (212) 351-3400
`Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
`Email: jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: pbondor@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: mstadnick@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: amodi@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: cmaier@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: klimbeek@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: bmatty@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: tbengera@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: kbi@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: fsilletta@desmaraisllp.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 278 Filed 01/11/19 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 18637
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented
`
`to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF
`
`system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this the 11th day of January, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`